Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

If you have concerns about the neutrality of this article you are expected to participate on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Actually this is the long-standing version of the paragraph before TeeTylerToe changed it. There was never a consensus on the talk page to add TeeTylerToe's POV-pushing bad-sourced version. Furthermore, I didn't break the 1RR in the first place, since this was not a revert (unlike this one), but a correction of my previous mistake when I removed the second paragraph unintentionally (fortunately Sean let me know of my error). Therefore I've never made more than one revert in a 24 hours period. Nevertheless, I'll settle the issue on the talk page of the article. Meanwhile I think the long-standing version before TeeTylerToe's changes should remain in place. I hope you'll understand. It's not my intention to break any rule or provoke an edit warring.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 08:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.

Your addition to Duvdevan Unit has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Six months of inactivity since the ban does not in any way help. All I can really advise you is that there are a huge number of reference sources, public domain and otherwise, on the internet which between them have a scary number of articles which we don't yet have covered. Honestly, it wouldn't be hard to find one public domain encyclopedic source out there and put together articles here related to topics covered individually there. I know personally wikisource and wikimedia commons have several PD reference sources containing articles that don't yet have coverage here. And there are untold numbers of others at archive.org, open library, and other sources. And that isn't counting all the more current reference sources accessible at google books. But, yeah, unfortunately, disappearing for six months after a specific topic ban can't really be seen as being an indicator of your ability to work with others improving, and that is what is generally sought before a restriction can be lifted. John Carter (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to inform you that the appeal of your topic ban from the topic area of the Arab-Israeli conflict has been declined. The consensus of uninvolved administrators was that a track record of constructive contributions to other topic areas is a prerequisite to the vacating of the topic ban. You may appeal again in six months, or you may make a final appeal to the arbitration committee as described at WP:ACDS#Appeals. I will also commend Callanecc's suggestion in the appeal of places to find things to do on Wikipedia that aren't connected to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Regards, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Since you returned yesterday you have made 16 edits, 5 of which violated your ARBPIA topic ban because they are related to the "Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed".[1][2][3][4][5] If you make another edit that violates the topic ban I will file an AE report. This could result in your account being blocked. It's easy to decide whether an edit is related to the "Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed" and it's easy to not make those edits and stay out of trouble. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I was coming to state exactly the same.

Sean.hoyland is too kind -> if you don't self-revert, I will report you ; not just if you stop. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to be rude. I made a mistake on Barghouti, but my edit was already reverted. I didn't violate my topic ban with the rest of the edits, since they are related to Nazism, antisemitism and the Holocaust, not the Arab-Israeli conflict. I wasn't banned from all Jewish-related articles.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

To add to the above, you've got to stay away from the boundary of your topic ban. You said you "don't know" about any other areas, but actually, that's just fine! We shouldn't be writing from our personal knowledge anyway, but from reliable source material. To write about anything, all you have to know is how to find and read the references. If antisemitism, in particular, interests you, might I suggest that, rather than writing about modern antisemitism (which will often tangle up with Israeli conflicts), that upon your return, you do some work on historical antisemitism? The Middle Ages, in particular, were full of blatant, virulent, and often state-approved or state-mandated antisemitism. See Statute of the Jewry, blood libel, and Jewish deicide (that one's the "Christ killer" bit) for some examples. We certainly could do with some better coverage on that type of historical antisemitism, and a lot of reference material is available about it.
And of course, in editing those, you're not much at risk of crossing wires with the modern Israel-Palestine conflict. You'll find that if you can do good work outside the area of your topic ban, and can show you've grown as an editor and won't cause further problems, a future request to ease or lift the topic ban may well succeed. But violating it or just not editing at all won't get you there. That will get you here, and if there's another incident, it may well get you blocked indefinitely. That's never a good outcome. If you're unclear in the future about whether something might violate your topic ban, you can ask the admin who imposed it, and if they're unavailable, you're certainly welcome to ask me as well. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 12:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Antisemitism in Europe into Antisemitism. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision and for a repeat violation of your topic ban, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 21:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Hello, AmirSurfLera. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.